1. The challenge in the present petition is to an order passed on 18.1.2018 by Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for short “the Act”) in Case No. 106/2015 whereby the respondent, the contractor was permitted to amend the reference petition.

2. The contractor filed an I.A. No. 2/2016 on 21.10.2016 for introducing the revised claim in the reference petition. Subsequently, I.A. No. 4/2017 was filed on 4.8.2017 to amend I.A. No. 2/2016. Learned Tribunal allowed I.A. No. 4/2017 relying on section 17-A of the Act conferring inherent powers on the Tribunal to make such order as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Tribunal. Learned Tribunal relied upon section 141 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the Code) in support of the finding that the Code is applicable to all miscellaneous proceedings; therefore, the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to allow the amendment.

3. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the statutory Arbitral Tribunal under the Act is a creation of statute. It derives jurisdiction and powers under the Act. Certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure have been extended in proceedings before the statutory Arbitral Tribunal to discharge its functions but the Code itself has not been made applicable. It is contended that section 141 of the Code is applicable in the proceedings “in any Court of civil jurisdiction”. The Arbitrator is not a Court as defined in terms of section 141 of the Code. The reliance is placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as 1991 MPLJ 520 (Maheshchandra L. Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others). The Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the judgment reported as (2003)6 SCC 230 (Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) By LRs. and another v. B. D. Agarwal and others) wherein, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure were not found applicable to the writ proceedings. It was held that the Code of Civil Procedure would be applicable only with regard to the procedural machinery provisions but no new right can be created.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that Madhya Pradesh Madhyasthan Adhikaran Regulations, 1985 (for short “the Regulations”) have been published by the State Government to give effect to the provisions of the Act.

5. The relevant provisions of the Code, the Act and the Regulations read as under :

“Civil Procedure Code

Section 141. Miscellaneous proceedings.—The procedure provided in this Code in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction.

Explanation.—In this section, the expression “proceedings” includes proceedings under Order IX, but does not include any proceeding under article 226 of the Constitution.

Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983

7-A. Reference petition.— (1) Every reference petition shall include whole of the claim which the party is entitled to make in respect of the works contract till the filing of the reference petition but no claims arising out of any other works contract shall be joined in such a reference petition.

(2) Where a party omits to refer or intentionally relinquishes any claim or any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards be entitled to refer in respect of such claim or portion of claim so omitted or relinquished.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) disputes relating to works contract which may arise after filing of the reference petition may be entertained as and when they arise, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.

7-B. Limitation.— [(1) The Tribunal shall not admit a reference petition unless-

(a) the dispute is first referred for the decision of the final authority under the terms of the works contract; and

(b) the petition to the Tribunal is made within one year from the date of communic